I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case before the Court. – On July 17, 2012, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention and Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted a brief to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “submission brief”) in the case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala (hereinafter the “State” or “Guatemala”). According to the Commission, this case concerns the State’s alleged “failure to prevent the murder of the human rights defender [A.A.], on December 20, 2004, [which] remains in impunity as a result of the irregularities committed at the beginning of the investigation and the lack of diligence in investigating hypotheses related to the motive for the killing. Furthermore, it alleged that the investigation did not take place within a reasonable time and was compromised by the lack of protection afforded to the persons who were actively involved in the process.” The Commission held that the State’s failure to provide protection for the victims’ family members led to their displacement, in violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence. It also alleged that Guatemala failed in its duty to guarantee political rights, in view of the public position held by Mr. A.A., and the fact that it became impossible for his daughter, B.A., to continue to exercise those rights. 2. Proceedings before the Commission – The proceedings before the Commission were as follows: a) Petition - On December 9, 2005, the Commission received a petition submitted by Ms. Claudia Samayoa and B.A. 1. b) Admissibility Report. – On September 8, 2010, the Commission approved the Report on Admissibility No. 109/10 (hereinafter “the Admissibility Report”). In that report, the Commission declared the petition admissible “for the purposes of analyzing the alleged violation of the right established in Article 4 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, with respect to [Mr. A.A.]. It also decide[d] to declare the case admissible with regard to the alleged violation of the rights established in Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of said Treaty with respect to [B.A.] and her relatives.” c) Report on the Merits. – On March 21, 2012, in compliance with Article 50 of the American Convention, the Commission approved the Report on Merits No. 56/12 (hereinafter, “Merits Report”), in which it reached a number of conclusions and made various recommendations to the State. i. Conclusions. – The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for: [1.] the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of [C.A.][;] [D.A.]; [E.A.]; [B.A.]; [F.A.]; [G.A.]; [H.A.]; [I.A.] and his siblings; [J.A.]; [K.A.]; [L.A.]; [M.A.] and [N.A.][;] [2.] the violation of the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same Treaty, to the detriment of [A.A.] [;] [3.] the violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence enshrined in Article 22 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of [C.A.][;] [E.A.]; [B.A.]; [F.A.]; [G.A.], [H.A.]; [J.A.]; [K.A.]; [L.A.]; [M.A.] and [N.A.][;] [4.] the violation of the right to personal integrity enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of [C.A.][;] [D.A.]; [E.A.]; [B.A.]; [F.A.]; [G.A.], [H.A.]; [I.A.] and his siblings; [J.A.]; [K.A.]; [L.A.]; [M.A.] and [N.A.][, and] [5.] the violation of the right to participate in government enshrined in Article 23(1) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of [A.A.] and [B.A.]. 1 The State challenged the appointment of the persons mentioned as representatives (infra paras. 13 and 33). Notwithstanding the Court’s decision on this point, hereinafter the Court shall refer to these persons as “the representatives.” 4